Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
>> The difference between parenthetical and in-text citations is
>> expressed using parentheses around the /first/ citation key. A
>> parenthetical citation has such parentheses around the first citation
>> key; an in-text citation lacks them. (Parentheses around non-initial
>> keys are permitted for visual consistency and to keep the grammar
>> simple, but have no meaning.)
>
> I think it would be nicer to differentiate between in-text and
> parenthetical citations at the type level, e.g.:
>
>
> [cite: this @key citation is in-text]
> [(cite): this @key citation is parenthetical]
>
> or, as already suggested
>
> [citet: ...]
> [citep: ...]
>
> I prefer the former.
I prefer the latter. It's explicit, shorter and doesn't hitting shift for
'()' (on my kb). No voodoo. I don't mind either, though.
>
>> *** Syntax for extensions
>> Additional information can be supplied in a citation that may affect
>> how export filters or particular backends format it.
>>
>> This additional information may be supplied following the brackets of
>> a citation between the following delimiters: `%%( ... )'.
>
> As pointed out, this is very odd. But I cannot see any clean solution.
> However, it would be nice to integrate it somehow with the syntax. Maybe
> something like
>
> [cite: ... @key ...; ... @key2 ... |latex: :prop val |html: :prop val]
I prefer to have more expressive keys, e.g. the 'cite' part. But perhaps
it's a good way express extra properties. The thing is, for latex the
extra property is a citation type.
> AFAIU, when using in-text citation, only the first key is extracted out
> of the parenthesis, so
>
> [cite: @Doe99 p. 34; see also @DoeRoe2000]
>
> should really render like
>
> Doe (1999, p. 34; see also Doe and Roe 2000).
>
> IOW, why do you think that "a citation is in-text or parenthetical as
> a whole"?
No! I believe (but correct me if I'm wrong) that neither John, Eric, Tom
nor myself have seen a citation like this in the wild. If you have I
might be wrong. It's no easily supported in latex. The latex equivalent
of the above is:
\citeauthor{doe} (\citeyear[p.\ 34]{doe}; see also \textcite*{roe})
Or something like that.
AFAIK,
[cite: @Doe99 p. 34; see also @DoeRoe2000]
→ Doe (1999, p. 34) and see also Doe et al (2000)
or maybe
Doe (1999, p. 34) and Doe et al (see also 2000).
I don't remember.
—Rasmus
--
Together we'll stand, divided we'll fall
